| Literature DB >> 35499069 |
Sachiko Makabe1, Katsuya Fujiwara2, Yu Kume3, Midori Kaga1, Nobuko Munemura1, Shoko Kemuyama1, Kazutaka Mitobe2.
Abstract
Although frailty has detrimental physical and psychological effects on elderly people, it is potentially reversible. In this study, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a pilot frailty education program implemented through barbershops/salons in Japan. In January 2018, we selected five barbershops/salons in Japan where customers were educated on frailty, which was classified as "normal," "prefrail," and "frail." We developed a web-based assessment tool to reduce the workload for barbers/stylists. Participants included 45 customers (82% women), with a median (interquartile range) age of 53.0 (47.5-57.5) years, and a mean ± SD BMI of 22.3 ± 2.7. Frailty scores indicated that 35% of participants were normal, 58% were prefrail, and 7% were frail. Frailty status scores reflected no significant differences after the intervention. Customers classified as frail were advised to visit the regional comprehensive support center for further professional frailty assessment. Participants, especially those aged over 65 years, found the web-based assessment difficult to use. In conclusion, a frailty education program implemented through barbershops/salons is possible because barbers/stylists can provide information on and assessment of frailty. Females and highly educated customers are more likely to be interested in participating. Nevertheless, a simple intervention is essential to expand the program nationwide.Entities:
Keywords: Barbershop; Frailty; Health educator; Salon; Super-aging society
Year: 2022 PMID: 35499069 PMCID: PMC9034965 DOI: 10.1007/s43545-022-00361-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: SN Soc Sci ISSN: 2662-9283
Fig. 1Study process
Demographic data and physical activity score (N = 45)
| Contents | Number | (%) | Mean ± SD or |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual aspects | |||
| Sex | |||
| Man | 8 | (18) | |
| Woman | 37 | (82) | |
| Age | |||
| 70 s | 5 | (11) | 53.0 (47.5–57.5) |
| 60 s | 1 | (2) | |
| 50 s | 23 | (51) | |
| 40 s | 16 | (36) | |
| BMI | 22.3 ± 2.7 | ||
| Educational level | |||
| More than high school | 28 | (62) | |
| High school or less | 17 | (38) | |
| Employment status | |||
| Yes | 42 | (93) | |
| No | 3 | (7) | |
| Health-related status | |||
| Sleeping | |||
| Can sleep | 33 | (73) | |
| Can’t sleep or neither | 12 | (27) | |
| Smoking | |||
| No smoking | 41 | (91) | |
| Smoking | 4 | (9) | |
| Alcohol | |||
| No drinking | 18 | (40) | |
| Drinking | 27 | (60) | |
| Current medical treatment status | |||
| No | 22 | (49) | |
| Yes | 23 | (51) | |
| Number of bodily pains | 3.0 (0.5–5.0) | ||
| Physical activity score | 4830.0 (2825.0–9335.0) | ||
Relationship between demographic data and frailty status (N = 45)
| Contents | Frailty or Pre-frailty ( | Normal ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual aspects | |||
| Sex | |||
| Man | 5 (62.5) | 3 (37.5) | 0.67 |
| Woman | 27 (73.0) | 10 (27.0) | |
| Age | 53.5 (47.3–57.8) | 53.0 (47.5–57.5) | 0.83 |
| BMI | 21.9 ± 2.3 | 23.5 ± 3.3 | n.s |
| Educational level | |||
| More than high school | 16 (57.1) | 12 (42.9) | 0.02* |
| High school or less | 16 (94.1) | 1 (5.9) | |
| Employment status | |||
| Yes | 30 (71.4) | 12 (28.6) | 1.00 |
| No | 2 (66.7) | 1(33.3) | |
| Health-related status | |||
| Sleeping | |||
| Can sleep | 23 (69.7) | 10 (30.3) | 1.00 |
| Can’t sleep or neither | 9 (75.0) | 3 (25.0) | |
| Smoking | |||
| No smoking | 30 (73..2) | 11 (26.8) | 0.57 |
| Smoking | 2 (50.0) | 2 (50.0) | |
| Alcohol | |||
| No drinking | 13 (72.2) | 5 (27.8) | 1.00 |
| Drinking | 19 (70.4) | 8 (29.6) | |
| Current medical treatment status | |||
| No | 13 (59.1) | 9 (40.9) | 0.11 |
| Yes | 19 (82.6) | 4 (17.4) | |
| Number of bodily pains | 4.0 (1.3–5) | 1.0 (0.0–3.5) | 0.08 |
| Physical activity score | 4725.0 (2280.0–9562.5) | 5800.0 (3390.0–9265.0) | 0.63 |
Data displayed either mean ± SD, median (Interquartile range), or number (%); and are analyzed using a t-test, Mann–Whitney U or chi-square tests depends on their characteristics with significant level with *p < 0.05, and not significant (n.s.)
Fig. 2Comparison of frailty status for pre/post-intervention (n = 20)